For example, the video referenced in the news article is the first video on the TEPCO archive. Worth a watch, the screenshot really doesn't do it justice.
They still post media, but it tends to be more PR stuff of complete work rather than ongoing work.
Here is another cool video :
A robot inside Unit 2 scrapping up samples of the melted-down core. Talk about cutting edge extreme environment robotics!
"A United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) study estimates the final total of premature deaths associated with the disaster will be around 4,000 mostly from an estimated 3% increase in cancers, which are already common causes of death in the region." Interestingly, the most common cancer it caused was thyroid (due to the Iodine-131 released), which has a 98% survival rate. [1, 3]
Whereas, currently, burning of fossil fuels is killing 7.3 million (1825 Chernobyls -- 4x the total number of civil nuclear reactors on Earth) per year.
"According to the World Health Organization in 2012, urban outdoor air pollution, from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass is estimated to cause 3 million deaths worldwide per year and indoor air pollution from biomass and fossil fuel burning is estimated to cause approximately 4.3 million premature deaths."
I’m stating facts about the response to the Fukushima Daiichi and Daini incidents.
Here’s another little known fact: the plant was designed by GE, including the placement of power supply units needed to run the pumps. This design was challenged but TEPCO chose to defer to GE’s expertise and stick to their design for the site.
One ton of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tons of Uranium, or 3,500,000 tons of coal.
'Gorbachev states, “The nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl 20 years ago this month, even more than my launch of perestroika, was perhaps the real cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union five years later”'
Edit: According to Wikipedia the company is still in business, but it's owned (50.11%) by the "Nuclear Damage Compensation and Decommissioning Facilitation Corporation". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Electric_Power_Company I would assume based on the name that that corporation actually might be involved in this project somehow?
The fallacy is that even though both are ostensibly valued in "dollars", at the scale they operate at (society wide), they are not necessarily fungible. You might spend 1 football and get only 0.09 cancer researches. Or they might not be interchangeable at all. I don't have the numbers even to start to make that judgment.
Space is probably just an extreme example of this as it feels "expensive" and seems to directly effect the life of most people very little.
As someone who works in a cancer research-related role, it's nice to not think about work when I leave the office. I would also hazard to guess that many cancer patients enjoy the distraction of various types of entertainment.
Now we can certainly do some refocusing, but I would generally hope that as a civilization and species we can talk and chew gum at the same time.
One of the benefits of nuclear weapons is that they make everyone have a significant risk, including the belligerents who traditionally got to hide away, protected and immune. If the people who push the button, so to speak, have options beyond Earth, it makes the prospects much more dim.
But more to the point, we're not actually spending any money on terraforming Mars right now. It's just something people talk about. What we are doing is sending robots to Mars to explore. And hopefully at some point we'll be sending better robots or even human scientists who'll want a pre-assembled base put together by robots. Worrying that the terraforming efforts people might get up to in 50 or 100 years will take away from the steps we need to be making now for climate change is premature.
> I seldom hear "Maybe we should stop making movies until we get our shit together" even though Hollywood has a budget about the same size as NASA's or slightly larger.
People are somewhat free to spend their money on what they choose. Taxes, not so much.
I don't think colonizing other planets in the solar system is a good strategy for giving the human race a second chance because its only a very narrow range of disasters that could wipe out all humans on Earth but spare a colony on Mars.
But there's an incredible amount of science to be gained through more exploration of the solar system. Comparing the atmosphere of Earth to that of Mars and Venus has helped a lot in understanding the details of global warming and ozone depletion. We don't know exactly how fundamental science research is going to pay off but it has before and I'd argue that there is actually something of fundamental value in understanding the universe better.
Research for the purposes of improving life on Earth may be a good use of tax payer dollars.
Establishing a colony is a whole other thing, which implies sustained human existence in a location for the purposes of either species propagation/continuation or resource extraction.
Mining things in space and sending them home to Earth is science fiction nonsense. The energy required means it's fundamentally impossible to have a profitable operation resource extraction from a colony.
I'm not aware of anyone every proposing that people mine minerals on Mars for shipment back to Earth. I have heard people talk about using propellant made on Mars to fuel voyages further out, Zubrin is big on that idea, but that's another kettle of fish - energy and mass can cost different amounts in different places.
People sometimes talk about mining asteroids and bringing the resulting minerals to Earth. I'm not sure that that is economically feasible, at least right now, but it avoids the big problem of having to launch stuff out of Mars's gravity well. Technically speaking the energy involved in getting an asteroid from the main belt to Earth is steeply negative so I don't think you could say that it's impossible on a strictly energy accounting basis, especially since there's no fixed rule establishing the relative value of energy and matter across different technological regimes.
But right now we spend huge amount of energy lofting satellites into orbit around the Earth. If we could use material that was already in space to build satellites in orbit that would be much cheaper from a strictly energy accounting standpoint. That would, of course, require some technological advances but makes a lot of sense if you just look at it in terms of energy.
hold tight to this while it is still true, might not be for much longer :)
That's said, Earth at its worse is still probably infinitely more livable than Mars at its best
Except for taxes. Anybody, who will live on Earth and be above average, will need to support other living beings (humans, animals, fish, forest, grass, birds, insects) with his taxes, otherwise we will have dirty cloak with few billions of angry and hungry living beings, which can dig you out of any bunker.
At Mars, it will be hard to survive without external support for about century, but much lower taxes and self selection of educated people with high IQ can make it booming.
In addition understanding why Mars is a frozen wasteland and why Venus is a molten lead hothouse can lead to revelations about our own climate to help us avoid destroying our own climate.
it appears that there were three mainstream sources of radiation measurement at the time of the accident, and in the following days, each showed a very different set of readings. The subsequent panics, and scandals, are a convoluted mess of conflicting data. In fact, a non-profit sent individuals to the area in later months, buying them inexpensive radiation detectors, to get another set of readings. True to political form around the world, this article above seems to be "blasting" the Tokyo Power Company TEPCO for the opposite of what happened ? at which point ? opaque